get_vix_snapshot

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the output (level, change, term-structure state) and mentions the return of 'VIX level, change, and context,' which gives the user a reasonable understanding of behavior. However, it doesn't detail data freshness, source, or what 'context' fully entails.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The bullet list for usage and returns is well-structured and every sentence contributes useful information without fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only snapshot tool, the description is largely complete: it states purpose, use cases, and return content. However, 'term-structure state' and 'context' are vague, and without an output schema the agent may not know exactly what fields to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially covered at 100%. With no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail because none is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get the current VIX snapshot: level, change, and term-structure state.' This explicitly defines the tool's output and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_term_structure or get_iv_rank.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance with a bulleted list: when the user asks about VIX, market fear level, whether index vol is elevated/calm, or needs vol regime context before a trade. This clearly indicates when to use this tool, even though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.